Media Matters: How The New York Times Botched The Hillary Clinton Email Story

[Cali_Democrat]

March 3, 2015 1:20 PM EST ››› ALEXANDREA BOGUHN

The New York Times' Deceptive Suggestion That Hillary Clinton May Have Violated Federal Records Law
It Was Only After Clinton Left The State Department That The Law Concerning Private Emails Was Changed


<...>

In a March 2 report, The New York Times accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with the use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department.

<...>

But The Law Overseeing Retention Of Private Emails Was Not Changed Until After Clinton Left The State Department.

President Obama Signed Update To Federal Records Act In 2014. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. [Congress.gov, accessed 3/3/15]

<...>

Law Signed "Two Years After Clinton Stepped Down." Criticizing the Times article's insinuation that Clinton violated the law, Daily Banter contributor Bob Cesca pointed out: "The article doesn't say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down." [The Daily Banter, 3/3/15]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726

[Hekate]

1. KnR We've got DUers still running with this story; running like the Boston Marathon.

We need a robust primary more than ever.

It's the damn MSM that has "anointed" her and calls her "inevitable" -- they are elevating her, and will take her down for sport.

Hillary needs to prove herself to the people with worthy Democratic contenders, something that will ultimately benefit her and all the rest of us.

So where are the contenders?!

[ARMYofONE]

2. David Brock is a hack, and a dishonest one at that.

The federal regulation at issue, requiring that official communications be preserved, was enacted in 2009.

ETA:

"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." Section 1236.22, National Archives and Records Administration Requirements.

[leftofcool]

3. "Official communications" Not private emails.

You know like "Hi C, it's mom, how's that baby bump?

[ARMYofONE]

6. Oh please. She conducted no business of the country in 4 years as SoS via email?

ETA:

And more to the point, since she owned and controlled the server, which was apparently installed in her house, we have no way of knowing which of her emails were official business and which were personal. Reason number 1,001 why private email addresses should not be used by government officials. She was wrong to do it. I don't care that she has a (d) beside her name. Apparently that's all it takes for a majority here to excuse most behavior.

[msanthrope]

5. David Brock is not a hack---and you seem concerned. nt

[ARMYofONE]

7. The only thing that concerns me is his hair and his well documented history of craziness.

[msanthrope]

9. Making fun of the mentally ill? Nice. nt

[tenderfoot]

8. So glad you signed up just to trash Brock

Best of luck in your war for one.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. NY Times the paper of record.

Still chasing the Blue Dress are they? Amazing how the National Propaganda Rag's are looking more like Germany in the Thirties and Forties. Who is really behind these Clinton Stories? When we get the facts then and only then will we know the real facts.